The Disney folks literally forgot to give him a name because production was so rushed. The name Adam that floats around is from at least one of the non-Disney versions. There’s a rumour that Adam was meant to be his name and they forgot to give him a line, but I’m pretty sure in the DVD commentary they just say they forgot to name him at all. It’s been a while since I’ve seen that, so I might have it backward (and the internet is confusing), but either way they did forget to give him a name in the actual film one way or another, even though they didn’t mean to.

He’d probably just stopped using it to make it easier to cope. I don’t remember if she even calls him Beast to his face, I just assume they didn’t bother much with names. Trust me, you can get a lot of mileage out of not using someone’s name.

Well, supposedly he was kind of a jerk, so they were probably counting their blessings and hoping he’d stay away as long as possible?
Also not speaking of him since in old folklore talking about a thing was the same as summoning it.

I know the year it’s supposed to be set in doesn’t work out, but I thought it’d be funny if they were going for the shitty life hat trick for this kid and set it during the French revolution. Townsfolk kill their monarchs, eleven year old son escapes and now he’s alone with a handful of castle staff. Stranger lady shows up demanding to be let in, traumatized little Prince Adam doesn’t like where this is going and turns her away. Surprise! She’s a fairy and now he’s cursed. None of the townspeople care because as far as they’re concerned the monarchs are dead, beast has a zero tolerance policy for visitors because in his experience, strangers only show up to kill your family or curse you.

Ten years later the curse is lifted, the townspeople have run out of piss and vinegar to stamp out their local monarchs, figure it’s fine to let him be a rich guy living in the woods.

Aside from the part about the Revolution, that pretty much WAS the story. Adam got jerked around by a moody fae for (entirely reasonably) turning away what seemed to be a creepy old woman coming to his home during a (If I recall correctly) dark and stormy night.

Well, not *that* reasonable considering the time period, its actually pretty poor manners to turn away a guest in poor weather to the eyes of that period. It’s actually a cautionary tale.

In olden times you were very careful about how you treated guests. Hospitality was a very big old world virtue for all sorts of reasons, partially because it was reciprocal (no motel 6s and maybe not even any Inns depending on where you were), but also because you could never be sure who a mysterious traveler was.

There’s a lot of old Norse sagas where Thor or Odin turn up in disguise on some mortal’s doorstep, and these are obviously beings you didn’t want to accidentally insult. Conversely if they were treated well they were obligated to return the favor, often in the form of a blessing, bountiful harvest or what have you.

Unfortunately Adam’s parents didn’t live long enough to give him the 411 on that score.

Then there’s also those monsters that can’t come in unless you let them in from those old tales, so it’s kind of a Catch-22 thing where either you are seen as rude by the easy-to-offend faeries and they curse you or you’re eaten to death by the nastier monsters you just let in, moron.

Don’t call someone a moron unless you have some credentials. The whole inviting something bad/evil is a Christian-era influenced myth. Stems from the belief that only evil things can touch you (or get into your heart) only if you allow them and by extension your home (and symbolically get power over you). Even by trickery. Otherwise you under God’s protection. The majority of this myth of the vampires needing to be invited in started with Bram Stoker(? I think? [possibly Christabel if you squint]) around late 1897. Norse mythology dates *way* before Christianity although the majority of the oral traditions weren’t written down till like 1300ish. You are probably looking at 1700-1800ish for this movie. That is around the time the modern version of the vampire blew up and became popular in Europe.
So it *may* be possible he was forgoing hospitality because… scary monsters but at this time hospitality was still seen as almost a right (a Christian duty) as well as still traditional. It seems more likely he was just inhospitable because he was a brat and by forgoing hospitality he engaged in discrimination and judgement (without proper cause — he wasn’t praying or eating,ect. ) and was promptly cursed for his abuse of power and wealth.

It probably didn’t help that he was all of 11. The movie tries to make it out like he’s been 20 for ten years or something, but dude was an 11 year old orphan and I don’t know about you, but I think that I’d be more worried about stranger danger than accidentally offending some weird fae.

Done today, I would hope it would also address the more disturbing social commentary of the story — that you can change a scary, abusive person into a nice, kind “prince” if you want to badly enough.
I mean, for the time period in which it arose, where marriages were usually highly arranged, with little or no input at all from the people who were going to get married to each other, it makes complete sense as a narrative — marriage was all about protecting your family and yourself by building alliances — but the thing is, we’re still telling it now, in a time where the love-marriage reigns supreme, which has the unintentional effect of making this old narrative sound way too much like a “stay with your abuser, because if you don’t, you’ve betrayed your unworthiness anyway”-type thing.

I don’t think the Prince was “abusive” so much as socially stunted. Like, he was a brat in the body of a big monster and didn’t know how to communicate with people. I think it’s not… really unreasonable that he would try to keep people who stumbled on his castle captive considering the first guy to head back to town tells everyone there’s a monster n the woods they need to go kill. Other that what could be counted as self-preservation and lack of social nuance that he was clearly open to learning when someone took the time to be patient with him, he wasn’t being unnecessarily cruel or “abusive”.

See, to me the best social commentary of Beauty and the Beast is that Gaston is a villain who requires no supernatural properties or history, and as such can (and does!) occur in the real world.

This is due to the way that society actively enables Gaston’s behaviour. It’s not just LeFou, it’s everyone at the bar singing his praises because he matches the image of (somewhat toxic) masculinity, not because of any particularly positive personality traits. And look at the way the town rallies to his side when he shows them the image of Beast/Adam and incites a panic with charisma and fear-mongering. They march off as a lynch mob to kill the outsider.

Saving Belle has surprisingly little to do with it: for Gaston it’s all about ensuring there’s nobody else in her life that she can love, besides him. It’s not like anyone the village knows is at the castle anymore. Plus, they collectively turned away Maurice earlier when he begged for the town’s help not just because he didn’t have the mirror, but because he was “crazy old Maurice”. He was the weirdo from the edge of town, not the charismatic town hero.

Although Belle probably had Stockholm syndrome, I think the fact she martyred herself keeps it from becoming a marriage analogy in the strictest sense. After all, her father sure as hell wasn’t married to the beast while he was kept captive and yet we don’t think anything of it because we didn’t get to see his reaction. He got so sick that he wasn’t really coherent at the time and he was in the dungeons, if I remember correctly, but he was a brilliant man and he could have tried the same thing if he had a chance. All he had to do was convince the servants to let him out, but then he was probably brewing that fever by the time he ended up in the castle and couldn’t manage it. Maybe they wouldn’t have agreed anyway, and since Belle had a run of the castle, we really don’t know how that rewrite might go.

I think if Belle had given in to Gaston and tried to change him, in spite of all signs pointing to such extreme selfishness that this was doubtful, then we’d have some problems. I would say the simple fact that the servants thought Belle had a chance goes to show that the Beast had already come to his own conclusions and might accept some guidance, from them and someone else. It’s possible they were just really hopeful, given their own circumstances, but none of them actually seemed extraordinarily unhappy. They’d come to terms with it and probably didn’t want to stay that way, but it seemed like they had actual concern for the Beast. And to be somewhat fair, the guy had been transformed into a monster. That doesn’t excuse him acting like one, but he had as much reason to be grumpy as they did, and yet his servants kept hope alive. I’d like to think they had enough collective sense to be positive for a reason.

On the other hand, Gaston had absolutely no reason to change. Everyone lauded him, as Softy noted, and his “best friend” was just a lackey, whom he treated like one. They should have been on more equal terms than the servants with a prince, but other than the Beast having a horrible temper (and possible depression) I think his servants were on better terms with him. They could also have Stockholm Syndrome, or something else similar given that they were in the same boat that he was, and of course it was possibly self interest that pushed them to help the Beast. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was why the fairy enchanted them too… Otherwise, they probably all would have left. Or most of them anyway.

Ehh… I’m not sure what I’m saying anymore. It’s a really complicated situation when you take off the Fairytale-Tinted Glasses. I guess my main point is just that it does touch on that “good girl turns bad guy around with the power of her vagina love” trope that is well known and well loved by many. And I agree that it does skirt that very dangerous boundary, since Belle was a prisoner for awhile.

But I think people tend to forget that Belle actively refused Gaston, which took not only brains but guts. She knew he was bad news and she saw right through him; partly because of her own bias, but also plain and simple common sense. It’s possible her decisions were clouded when it comes to the Beast, but the entire reason Gaston was a villain is because he was actually WORSE than the Beast. The Beast had to want to change, or he never could have. Gaston absolutely didn’t feel any need to change, nor did he want to. He had everything that he wanted and he was willing to manipulate other people to get it. The Beast was a jerk, but I’d like to think he got there through the kind support of his servants and some honest introspection about his actions and his life. Obviously he hadn’t gotten there entirely by the time Maurice showed up at his door, but I don’t think he would have let Belle take the guy’s place at all if he was still a complete asshole.

I don’t believe Belle ever had Stockholm Syndrome. Let’s not forget, Belle LEFT . . . TWICE. Sure, the first time, she had the run-in with the wolves, but the second time . . . if it weren’t for the fact that Beast/Adam’s life was in danger, she likely wouldn’t have returned until her father was completely better . . . or possibly, not at all. But besides ALL that, the prince was cursed at the age of 11. He had to go through PUBERTY in a BEAST’S BODY. I imagine that’d make ANYONE grumpy. Not to mention, after 10 years, and knowing that his time was running out to ever become human again . . . yeah, he’d given up. His servants may have had hope, but at the beginning of the movie, the Beast had given up on ever being human again. He didn’t know how to talk to people. Sure, he had his servants, but they were HIS SERVANTS. He didn’t know how to treat people as his equal, or even respect others. He never LEARNED. But I think he wanted to. Which is why the tranformation was able to happen. He wanted the change. He wanted the second chance. With Gaston . . . he doesn’t even realize what a monster he is, and when confronted with the title, he rejects it, lashes out, and tries to regain control over his own world with violence. And sure, the Beast starts out that way, but you can see that from the beginning he’s trying to change. From the moment Belle first defies him, he responds rather violently, angrily pounding on her door, demanding she come down for dinner. She says no, and he TRIES to reign in his temper, likely for the first time in YEARS, and she says no again. He grows upset, because he TRIED and she STILL didn’t want to even be around him (which would be even more upsetting because he doesn’t WANT to be seen as a monster), so he overreacts and lashes out with forbidding her from being able to eat. Of course, his servants counteract that, but . . . yeah. Then she leaves when he lashes out again, but he saves her. He’s not expecting thanks at this point. He has accepted that she’s not going to see him as someone to be treated as a human being, but she does. And he starts to respond AS a human being, rather than a beast. It’s a slow process, but it also has some rather profound implications. . . .And it’s 2:30 in the morning . . . I’m gonna go to sleep now. Bleh. XP

Hunh, that’s an interesting viewpoint/take on the story and it would make a lot more sense considering how the French treated their monarchs during the Revolution. I had assumed before that it took days to get to the castle, so maybe Adam was just really isolated, but then the mob scene happened and the villagers knew where to go, so that threw the theory out the door.

I always figured the prince just had a small principality that was a distance away from the village, since it seemed like you had to travel a little while to get there. So maybe the prince wasn’t the one they paid taxes to, and he just mostly had the woodlands in that area. Or the prince title was more honorary and the lands had some other title, easy to be an obscure prince that way.

Or maybe the enchantress pulled another jerk move in addition to cursing an eleven year old acting like an eleven year old, and made everyone else forget them.

I always thought it was part of the curse, too. And when I learned that he was 11 years old (because I didn’t do maths as a kid), well, that feary was really just a jerk and Adam really a victim.
Although the revolution theory does sound really legit, because where the heck were his parents?!

I think at this point it’s entirely fair to say “the enchantress did it” since there’s more than enough evidence of her jerkish meddling in everything else having to do with that prince. So if he doesn’t have parents, maybe the enchantress orphaned him.

Considering Beast’s (Adam’s) dilemma, I think her not knowing your name is the least of your problems. Speaking of, I honestly forget. I know that in order to break his curse, Belle had to love him despite his appearance. But did he need to reciprocate the love? I know that he does in the movie, and they all live happily ever after, but I can think of a much different scenario happening if Beast (Adam) only had to make someone fall for him.

Also, good luck with your surgery! I sincerely wish you a speedy recovery!

The theatre versions I’ve seen all had the same sort of rules for the curse to be broken. The prince had to find true love and have it returned in spite of his beastly form in order for the curse to lift. The reason he’s typically dying towards the end of the tale is because of heartbreak when Belle doesn’t return from a visit to her family rather than a physical stabwound from some big buff maniac. Incidentally that always made a lot more sense to me than the Disney depiction no matter how much I love it.

And Belle takes on the role of Mom/Older Sister? I could dig it. And when Gaston breaks down the door, Beast is all “Whoa. Beefcake.” And Belle is all “honey, don’t. I know he’s hunky, but REALLY damaged goods.” “Why don’t you want me to be happy?!” *Adam storms off, Belle Pursues, Gaston pursues (irked at being ignored)* Scene plays out as normal, more or less, fast forward to stabbage. Adam: “Belle, you were right. I’m sorry. I should have listened” Belle: “No, stop, it’s okay, I understand.” Adam: “Forgive me?” Belle: “Always.” *hugs. Magic transformations*

I’ve also wondered why these movies always seem to be so picky, because we often see multiple “acts of love” that would count before the resolution. Every single one of the servants seemed to love him like a son, and he cared for them back.

It had to be reciprocal. In the original, Belle actually goes to visit with her family for a few days, and the beast/prince pines so hard that he doesn’t eat the entire time she’s gone (though he doesn’t warn her about this). Her sisters, jealous because Belle is well-dressed and is describing a pretty luxurious life (aside from being forced to have all her meals with a pig-beast), so they convince her to stay a few more days, hoping to piss off the beast and get Belle punished or killed. By the time she returns, he’s gone a week without eating and is near death, just laying on the ground in the garden. She freaks out, realizes her feelings for him, and the spell is broken.

It’s weird, but I really hated that prince as a kid. He shows up at the end of the movie, and it’s like “who the fuck are you?!”, and then the story ends, and we’re not even given a chance to get to know this character, it ends with him remaining a stranger. And then Belle does not seem nearly as freaked out as she realistically should have been by the fact that the person she loved was suddenly replaced by a complete stranger. Ten seconds, tops, of her trying to decide how she’s going to react, and then she’s completely at ease with being engaged to some guy, just because he’s pretty and rich as hell. Not even a hint of an adjustment period.

It all just sort of spoiled the story, and since it started with the prince showing up, I kinda blamed him for it.

The argument could be made that with the undoing of his curse, Beast (Adam) would be more outgoing and social, as opposed to the self-enforced isolation he was in before. That might alter his personality a bit as he tries to re-establish himself in court.

Except Belle wouldn’t know that. She had no backstory on the castle or anything.

If it had happened with real people, there would be an adjustment period — even if you knew for a fact that the person who had suddenly and instantaneously become the physical opposite of themselves was the person you had loved before their transformation, the whole event would be very strange. It might take a day or three to come to terms with.

That also goes for the enchanted staff. There’s not even a “wait, you guys were once human? Jesus christ, that sorceress was a complete BITCH! Wait– I ate off of you! I drank tea brewed inside of you. Oh my god.” moment.

You don’t think “Hey, we all actually used to be human but are under a spell” didn’t come up in conversation with anyone in all that time? They probably wouldn’t tell her how it was supposed to be broken as that would just make it harder for it to happen but it seems like an obvious discussion topic for anyone with basic curiosity and literally nothing else t do.

The servants were really just happy to have someone new around so they did all kinds of weird stuff for Belle, but after a while they probably will all do their best to forget it ever happened and never talk about it, because there’s some stuff in there that probably would need brain bleach.

I don’t think it’s strange, I think everyone thought the prince looked weird, and that’s considering his other form. Why did the brown fur turn into blond hair? If he was a tall beefy dude, why did he turn into a scrawny lanky guy who looked kind of malnourished? I find it hard to believe that he was turned into a 7 foot tall brickhouse as an 11 year old since he could have just wrecked the enchantress with all that newfound strength, so what happened to all his gains over the years? The only thing that stayed the same at all appearance-wise was his eye color – that’s the only way Belle even recognizes it’s him despite him having just transformed in front of her. Seems like an odd design choice.

Now I’m suddenly picturing a traumatized “Big and Tall Tailor” apprentice standing behind the counter, holding a scrap of paper, mumbling “Boss… a… a talking… candlestick just came by… with this list of measurements…”

Or possibly a bunch of small household items stacked precariously on top of each other in a long trenchcoat, wobbling all over the place while wearing a hat and false beard, being all, “Yes, my fine, good sir *ow… you’re on my handle*… could you possibly do me up a few shirts and *rattle* trousers? *shhh!*” as they try to hand over a wad of money.

Second… I’ve always wondered, exactly, whether Adam really *wanted* the curse lifted at the end. After all, he’d have the girl AND still be a seven, eight foot, super-strong mass of sinew and muscle. Sure, there would still be some lingering social awkwardness… but tell me of a contemporary monarch that wouldn’t want Prince Beast on the payroll.

The “Human Again” sequence that had been left out originally revealed that their transformation was not a one time event with a static outcome, but was PROGRESSIVE, that is, they start out with a few object features that gradually increase as the flower slowly wilts, spiraling downward until they are all permenantly transformed into lifeless, inanimate objects. Presumably, Beast (Adam) would have himself become a mindless, insentient animal as well. All or nothing with this enchantress.

Also: WTF?! The prince was a little kid when he was cursed! His staff didn’t even do anything! The enchantress responsible for all of it becomes a bigger and bigger asshole with every detail.

It’s weird that, with all the unnecessary sequels, prequels, interquels, and so on, that Disney has never bothered to explore her side of the story. You got a character who decided to curse a little boy and a castle full of innocent bystanders into a living hell — the person responsible must be a real piece of work.

Either the enchantress was a weird sort of personification of fate and knew how it was going to turn out and how close to the wire it was going to get, or they *really* wanted to ruin the life of a little kid. She realizes that if she was cold and had that much magic, she probably could have made her own castle and fire? Why’s she going around like a scary poison apple carrying creeper trying to play gotcha games with people?

Is there like a modern version of the story where the cursed prince refuses to live in hiding, and just continues living his life as if nothing has happened — and the town and political arena just has to cope with it?
Because I would like to see that angle explored.

On one hand, it’s not like other prominent leaders haven’t been disfigured by the ravages of some illness or another in that time period. On the other hand, superstitious villagers and apparent witchcraft/sorcery results in a witch hunt and purge, so maybe he had to stay in hiding.

Oh no, the prince in the disney version went straight into hiding, and worse. He must have been super brittle to start out with, because getting cursed just completely broke him.

I mean, like if the cursed prince had been someone more flexible and pragmatic from the start. And the biggest reason the villagers wanted to kill him was that they never knew he lived out there, and he was a stranger to them — and finding out that a large, dangerous-looking monster lived right next door was scary as shit. So if instead, he’d sent letters to his contacts, informing them that he’d been terribly cursed, and never went into hiding in the first place — what then?

Well, he was an orphan and mostly lived alone with just his servant/friends around – and I suspect a lot of his mentality as a 21 year old was the result of not being at all social between the ages of 11 and 21, so he basically stayed an 11 year old with no parents mentally. Dude probably did have issues even before the enchantress showed up.

And it’s not like most 11 year olds would think to warn his neighbors about the curse. It’s an interesting take though, I know in that time period there would be tutors teaching kids that age how to manage their lands and politics. And they’d also have key allies around regularly for feasts and other occasions. Maybe the curse also made them poor so they couldn’t afford it.

Early storyboards of an alternate opening shows that she was originally born an ogress to her human parents who were the rulers of Duloc. They had her locked in the tower under the lie that she was “of such rare beauty” she was kidnapped. They died, and the kingdom was under the rule of “an ambitious regent” – hinted to be Farquaad. When she ‘became of age’ to ascend the throne she escaped the tower and encounters a witch named Bib Fortuna (a reference to the Star Wars character of the same name) – who has narrated the entire sequence through her tarot cards.

She gave Fiona a potion which would make her beautiful; however the potion has no effect. But Fortuna warns her the potion has a side effect – she will change between her human and ogress form until she finds her true love. Later she was whisked away by her dragon guardian and returned to the tower

Speaking of fairy tale interpretations, has anyone ever read the original “Puss N Boots”? It is a hilarious story! Easily the funniest of the old Germanic stories, and I was expecting a Spanish version for the Shrek spinoff (The Don of La Cariba, instead of The Marqis of Caribas) with a lot of original divergences. I mean, it seemed obvious to me when Puss first appears in Shrek 2 that the whole basis for him having a reputation as an ogre killer had to be from him slaying an ogre wizard (albeit from tricking him into becoming a mouse), so I was annoyed they wrote a completely different story entirely not nearly as funny as the original.

On one hand, I’m among the people who do think Beast’s name is, or at least should be, Adam (because “human”). On the other hand, I have a grudge with the part of Disney fandom who insist that name is 100% canon, when he is never actually called that in the movie and the crew openly admits he was never given a human name during the production. Official Disney sources aren’t very consistent about what his birth name is, Adam just happens to come up most often.

As I have read Frankenstein quite recently, I think I would remember that. But throughout the book, the monster is called “monster”, “wretch” and other such inappropriate names. The monster himself says he wants a companion, and Victor considers it a moment, until he realizes he would have created an Adam and Eve of abominations and feared they might multiply or prosper or any such thing. Maybe that was what stuck in your head? It’s also possible that the called it an “Adam” when he created the monster, as the monster itself sees Victor as his creator, the analogy would fit as well, but I am 97% sure the monster was never in any way christened.

Son of Frankenstein I think it was established that he named his monster after himself. So Frankenstein’s Monster, depending on the adaptation, is named Frankenstein, despite how often people love to nitpick that.

Hm. Of course I did not at all think of the movies. Personally I would deny their existence just because I think the source material is Mary Shelley’s book and as far as I know, each movie so far has derived so far from it as to be a completely different story. Are the movies considered “canon”, so to speak?

The interviewer also did a two-part video on why people seem to think the Beast’s name is Adam, when it isn’t. The people who worked on the film did admit it was kind of funny, however, that they didn’t give him a name, and this never occurred to them until pretty dang far in the movie. But they had to admit, any name that they could have given him wouldn’t be fitting; audiences fell in love with the Beast, and so did Belle (So much so that, according to the above interview, they cut out a line from the end of the film where Belle suggests to the prince that he grow a beard. I find that hilarious and wish they kept that in!).

Anyway, that’s the end of my dumb trivia rant… I wish you the best of luck with your surgery, Kelly! Get well soon!

That doesn’t entirely matter, though. I love Belle, but she basically spends the entire movie calling him “cursed dude.” The movie creators never gave the audience his name, but he presumably does have one. Did she ever ask for it?

Sorry; I wasn’t trying to be a jerk or anything. I just wanted to add to the conversation and share some Disney trivia. I was trying to say it nicely and not come off as a know-it-all, but it looks like I blew it. Sorry for making you feel worse when you’re already feeling lousy. :-( I hope you feel better soon!

“Maybe lay off the nitpicking and pedantry?”
*half a dozen comments of the aforementioned*

Welp.

For what it’s worth, Coela, I’m pretty sure you were destined to make this comic. All those years spent refining your style and working with the boot-nose of our beloved commander have paid off in perfectly capturing the Beast’s equally boot-like sniffer!

Man, screw those folks. I love everything you have done. I love the way the art has evolved. I love the storytelling. I love the writing and the characters. This comic is one of the reasons I love Mondays, and that is saying something!

In keeping with your pre-surgery wishes, I will try to make this comment as honest and un-pedantic as possible:

I very much enjoy this webcomic. It has interesting characters from video games I like and challenges the way those characters are presented in interesting and funny ways. I liked today’s comic in particular because it challenged the way characters interacted in a movie that I liked. It’s fun and refreshing to see the ways in which one can be masculine while at the same time being healthy and kind to those around them.

Good luck on your surgery. Hope the pain isn’t too bad after. I hope this doesn’t come off as sarcastic because I definitely mean every word.

Fun fact: Belle probably had Schizoid Personality Disorder from the start of the film and Stockholm Syndrome from about midway on.

Basically, Belle would probably have preferred everyone in the castle remain living furniture and the prince remain a monster. Trademark symptoms include self imposed social isolation, and forming closer bonds to animals than humans.

Textbook style definition: Schizoid Personality Disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of detachment from social relationships, and a sufferer often has difficulty expressing emotions and does so typically in very restricted range, especially when communicating with others.

From a fun article on Cracked.com called ‘6 Beloved Characters That Had Undiagnosed Mental Illnesses’.

Here’s hoping all goes well with surgery and recovery. Also, I don’t know why but I always imagined that Beast er Adam eventually ended up growing a nice beard because after so long with hair on his face he felt naked without it.

While you’re under see if they can throw in some Automail, having a mini gun that pops out of your shoulder would be badass. Failing that a 10 foot telescopic neck, just think of the Ice Cream cones you could eat. But whatever you choose, I hope so your operation goes well.

In a perfect world, Gaston would have been the prince who became the Beast (or an anti-Beast) and then Belle would have fallen in love with him. Really, it’s the Beast who’s the main character of this story. He’s the one who needs to learn a lesson.

Kelly, I am not going to nitpick you because I love you and all that you do (see the name?) but Beauty and the Beast itself could have been a much stronger story.

Hey there, Coelasquid. May be a little late to the party here but long time reader, first time commenter. Get better quick, have a beer as soon as you’re able and keep bein’ you – you’re pretty awesome and I hate that you’ve had so much shit dropped on ya lately. Hope you feel way better soon and that really good things start happenin’ once you’re through this. Kick ass, take names and when shit gets hairy, run outta bubblegum! Best o’ luck, y’all.

I always liked the retelling of Beauty and the Beast where Belle decides that she likes the wild Beast she falls for, not the Prince he’d become, and convinces him to go with it, so he drops all the human trappings and becomes a tiger (and she gets transformed into a tiger, too, because love, “happily ever magic” and F! the status quo and social norms! )